• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

Consolidated Irrigation District v. City of Selma

Filing Date: 2008
Case Categories:
  • State Law Claims
    • State Impact Assessment Laws
Principal Laws:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Description: Challenge to city’s negative declaration concerning planned residential development.
  • Consolidated Irrigation District v. Superior Court of Fresno County
    Docket number(s): F063534
    Court/Admin Entity: Cal. Ct. App.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    05/23/2012 Order Download Order issued modifying opinion and denying rehearing.
    04/26/2012 Opinion Download Opinion issued. Subsequently, the district moved for leave to conduct limited discovery and to augment the administrative record. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the appellate court reversed, holding that the record should have been augmented to include, among other things, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report.
  • Consolidated Irrigation District v. City of Selma
    Docket number(s): F061103
    Court/Admin Entity: Cal. Ct. App.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    02/08/2012 Opinion Download Opinion issued. An irrigation district in California petitioned for a writ of mandate challenging the City of Selma’s use of a negative declaration under CEQA in approving a 160-unit, 44-acre residential development. The trial court granted the petition, holding among other things that the evidence presented supported a fair argument that the proposed development may have a significant effect on the environment. In particular, the court held that the negative declaration did not adequately address greenhouse gas emissions from the project. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed, holding that the irrigation district had standing to maintain the action and that the evidence in the record should not have been discounted by the city absent a credibility determination.

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.